Greatest Show from Darwin 5-Transitional forms

5. Transitional forms

Everyone who touched Darwin's great creation for the first time, voluntarily or involuntarily, was visited by the question of transitional forms. How did evolution manage to bridge the gap from fish to amphibians, from dinosaurs to birds, and any other transition from one creature to another? After all, these creatures are so different, and there are catastrophically few or no fossils testifying to such a transition.

See how elegantly Dawkins dispels any doubts:
"The evidence for evolution would be completely unshakable, even if no corpse ever turned into a fossil. It's a bonus that we actually have rich deposits of fossils to excavate, and more are being discovered every day.… We don't need fossils — the case for evolution is ironclad without them; it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as evidence against evolution..."
It sounds so convincing. Biologists don't need proof. And here's why: "The evolutionary process takes place gradually, and this is not just an obvious fact, it must be gradual if it is supposed to explain anything. Huge leaps in one generation... are almost as incredible as the divine creation of the world, and are excluded from consideration for the same reason: it's statistically too unlikely...".

Indeed, what could be simpler? There are no intermediate links, because every being is an intermediate link. Of course, with the exception of those creatures - outsiders of the race for survival, who were rejected by natural selection.
A meticulous reader will ask: - why do no one find the remains of outsider creatures of natural selection?
Who knows? Maybe the natural mutation laboratory was extremely accurate, so the losers simply did not have a chance to petrify. Maybe the changes of these creatures were so insignificant that it is not possible to detect their inferiority in the fossils.

It is pointless to look for any intermediate links there, when the transition as such cannot be detected even with an armed glance. Everything is so smooth and so imperceptible that the differences over the centuries are indistinguishable. They can be detected only in the context of millions of years.

Recall the words of Darwin himself on this subject: "It can be said that natural selection investigates the smallest variations daily and hourly around the world, discarding the bad ones, preserving and composing the good ones, working silently and imperceptibly, wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, on the improvement of each organic being in relation to its conditions life, organic and inorganic. We do not notice anything in these slow changes in development until the hand of time marks the elapsed centuries, and even then our understanding of the geological past is imperfect: we only notice that modern life forms differ from those that once existed."

This argument is so win-win, so convincing that I would take off my hat if I had it, before the perfection of thought, and just for form's sake, I will introduce you to a specific example of this argument presented by the esteemed Professor Dawkins.

"Why all these digressions?" an impatient witness will ask, because, so, everything is clear and self—evident. I don't argue. However, in the analysis of examples, I want to rely on something, and it is better if it is a theory. Therefore, do not forget these excerpts from the theory when you follow the application of it on a specific example.


* - I apologize for my English. I would be grateful for the corrections.

Next:http://proza.ru/2022/07/01/468